Techdirt. Stories about "mpa"Easily digestible tech news...https://www.techdirt.com/
en-usTechdirt. Stories about "mpa"https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/td-88x31.gifhttps://www.techdirt.com/Tue, 11 Apr 2017 11:41:00 PDTMPA Gets Ireland To Crack Open The Site-Blocking Door It Plans To Bust ThroughTimothy Geignerhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170405/09354937087/mpa-gets-ireland-to-crack-open-site-blocking-door-it-plans-to-bust-through.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170405/09354937087/mpa-gets-ireland-to-crack-open-site-blocking-door-it-plans-to-bust-through.shtml
Give an inch and they will take a mile, as the saying goes. This mantra applies quite nicely to the recent spate of site-blocking efforts that have taken place around the world. Once content owners, chiefly Hollywood and music groups based in America, manage to slightly open the door to having entire sites blocked by order of government, they then barge through and expand the scope of the site-blocking exponentially.

On behalf of several major Hollywood studios, the group requested Irish Internet providers to block access to three popular streaming sites; movie4k.to, primewire.ag, and onwatchseries.to. In their complaint, the movie studios, including Disney, Twentieth Century Fox, and Warner Bros, described the sites as massive copyright infringement hubs, with each offering thousands of infringing movies.

Monday evening the court approved the request. This means that the three websites will soon be rendered unavailable by Eircom, Sky Ireland, Vodafone Ireland, Virgin Media Ireland, Three Ireland, Digiweb, Imagine Telecommunications, and Magnet Networks.

The blocking of entire websites on the basis of industry complaints should be seen as no small thing. Given how often sites that Hollywood claims are "pirate sites" in fact have completely legitimate uses, wary eyes should be cast at this sort of censorship. These three sites may not fall under that falsely accused designation. The problem is that in the immediate aftermath of the court's decision, the MPA is licking its chops to go after many, many more sites.

The ISP asked the court to put a cap on the number of notifications, limiting it to 50 per month. However, the movie studios objected to a blocking cap, and the judge decided not to add any limitations for now.

No caps, because as we've seen in other European countries, these blocking requests will now be vastly expanded to include all kinds of websites. With that volume increase will come mistakes, overreach, and false accusations. It's what always happens. And at that point, Irish citizens, and perhaps the courts, will realize exactly what kind of Pandora's box has been opened to satiate the folks in Hollywood. The ISPs in Ireland already know this, as they are hedging their support for these blocking efforts in the future.

Irish Times reports that none of the ISPs opposed the blocking request. However, Eir said that the costs involved could become an issue if the number of blocked websites increases drastically in the future.

It's easy money to bet that those drastic increases will come about quite quickly. Hollywood can't seem to keep from barging through a door like this once it's been cracked open.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>block-partyhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20170405/09354937087Thu, 21 Mar 2013 07:33:09 PDTMotion Picture Association: The Cloud Is A Threat To Us And The Best Response Is CensorshipMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130320/16033322402/motion-picture-association-cloud-is-threat-to-us-best-response-is-censorship.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130320/16033322402/motion-picture-association-cloud-is-threat-to-us-best-response-is-censorship.shtmlexplained that the cloud was evil and censorship was the answer:

The news was even worse from Frank Rittman, SVP of the Motion Picture Association, Asia Pacific, who stated that potential pirates have all the digital tools they need to make illegal media sharing more viral than ever. “Digital online technology has enabled new channels of delivery for entertainment media,” he said. “The cloud also represents a threat in that it facilitates piracy, and the pirates seem to have gotten into this space first.”

The answer to both problems, Rittman believes, is pushing for Internet Service Providers to block sites known to be troublemakers when it comes to Internet piracy. He pointed to examples of the practice in Europe, Indonesia, Malaysia, and South Korea as models of how this has worked as a low-cost way of cutting down on piracy that has met with some success.

He also complains that Hong Kong won't pass a law like this because the process has been "hijacked by extremists." Well, that's one way of looking at it. The alternative way is that arguing that flat out censorship of entire sites because you have been too slow to adapt, is crazy talk and is significantly more extremist than anything anyone else has been arguing. If you want to go after direct infringement, go after that. But censorship of entire sites is going way too far. And, contrary to his claims, it has not "worked" nor has it "met with some success." It hasn't driven people back to paying for movies.

Really, Rittman's statements are an example of the problem. Here are people so focused on "stopping piracy" that they don't care about the consequences of their own actions on innovation, nor do they care about whether or not it helps their own bottom line.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>hammers-and-nailshttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130320/16033322402Thu, 12 Jul 2012 13:01:00 PDTFBI Wants To Make It Easier For You To Tell Your Customers They Might Be Felonious PiratesMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120712/11195219675/fbi-wants-to-make-it-easier-you-to-tell-your-customers-they-might-be-felonious-pirates.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120712/11195219675/fbi-wants-to-make-it-easier-you-to-tell-your-customers-they-might-be-felonious-pirates.shtml
It's the FBI's special "anti-piracy" warning. For the past few years, under a special "pilot" program, the FBI has allowed the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, ESA and SIIA (basically, the big record labels, movie studios, video game makers and software companies) to make use of the logo to warn all of their customers that they just might be felons and the FBI might show up at any moment. It's pure FUD. It also makes no difference. Is there seriously anyone anywhere in the world who sees this logo and suddenly changes their behavior?

However, this program is about to expand in a big, big way. The FBI is about to release new rules (pdf and embedded below) that expand the program so that any copyright holder will be allowed to slap this logo on their product. Expect to start seeing it everywhere... and to feel that much more like the content creator you're legitimately buying from thinks you're a crook subject to federal law enforcement action. Way to "connect" with fans, huh?

The document from the FBI discussing this repeats a few times that the FBI really feels like this program is effective and important. Could they be any more out of touch?

First, the FBI believes that the
APW Seal and accompanying warnings convey important messages to the public and are a significant component of its efforts to deter and to investigate federal crimes involving the piracy of intellectual property. Allowing use by copyright holders who are not members of industry associations will enhance those efforts. Second, although broader access may make unauthorized use more likely, this concern is overshadowed by the value of increasing public awareness of these prohibitions and the FBI’s role in investigating related criminal activity.

There are all sorts of issues with this. The first is that this whole campaign is ignoring a key point: nearly all copyright infringement is a civil infraction, not a criminal one. Most ordinary users don't understand the difference between civil and criminal infringement -- and the FBI and its silly seal do nothing to explain that difference. It's pretty clear that the purpose is to falsely imply that sharing with a friend music you legally purchased might somehow lead you to being targeted in an FBI sting operation. It's FUD, plain and simple. Second, the idea that spreading this logo further will deter actual criminal infringement? Are they serious? Remember, one of the requirements for criminal copyright infringement is that the action is willful. That means that the person knows they're breaking the law. So educating them on the fact that they're breaking the law... er... shouldn't make much of a difference.

Finally, notice that nowhere does the FBI provide any data on how effective this program has been. Because there isn't any. The MPAA shows this logo before movies, and it's not like there has been any less infringement. In fact, the FBI and ICE recently decided to double up and extend the warnings on DVDs , and it's not like that made a difference either. No, instead, all it's done is piss off tons of legitimate customers, who paid good money for the content, only to be interrupted by a giant FBI logo warning them that they may be criminals facing federal charges. The FBI even admits: "it is difficult to measure the effectiveness of the APW Seal program at preventing piracy," but apparently that won't stop it from expanding it. Who in their right mind thinks this is a sensible strategy?

Either way, it's interesting to read through the comments and feedback on this program -- including someone who suggested that the FBI should make sure the warning is skippable at the beginning of movies (the FBI notes that's up to the film producers) or another one that says this seal should be mandatory on copyright-protected works (the FBI rightly points out it has no such authority). Repeatedly, when people raise issues of more widespread use of the seal (dilution, confusion, belief that works without the seal aren't protected, etc.) the FBI insists that the supposed benefits of blanketing the universe with this logo far outweigh any downsides.

There were also concerns raised that the logo will have serious chilling effects on fair use -- which is definitely a major possibility. And the FBI's response is ridiculous.

Five comments also expressed a concern that the broader accessibility of the APW Seal may have a “chilling effect” on fair use, as some copyright holders may attempt to use the APW Seal to discourage uses of their copyrighted work that would otherwise be permissible under the fair use doctrine. The FBI fully recognizes that fair use, which is authorized under Title 17, United States Code, Section 107, does not constitute infringement, much less a federal crime. The warning language does not suggest otherwise. The FBI intends to address this matter on its public website.

Because we all know that everyone who sees the logo will go to the FBI's website and read the fine print at the bottom of the page.

Of course, what's really crazy in all of this is that the FBI is famous for having an itchy trigger finger when anyone uses its normal logo. Remember, this is the same FBI that, just two years ago, sent a threat letter to Wikipedia, because the Wikipedia page on the FBI shows the FBI logo (leading to an awesome reply from Wikimedia General Counsel, Mike Godwin).

Honestly, the whole thing is silly, but because of this kind of cluelessness, expect to see those pointless FBI warning logos on all sorts of content in the future, so that every time you legitimately purchase content, you'll be reminded that the copyright holder thinks you're a lousy stinking thief who deserves a federal investigation. I'm still trying to figure out how that could possibly be good for business, but I guess I just don't understand copyright...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>yeah, that'll workhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120712/11195219675Wed, 29 Feb 2012 07:41:44 PSTFunny How Sensitive Hollywood Gets When You Threaten To Mess With Its 'Fundamental' StructureMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120228/05111217896/funny-how-sensitive-hollywood-gets-when-you-threaten-to-mess-with-its-fundamental-structure.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120228/05111217896/funny-how-sensitive-hollywood-gets-when-you-threaten-to-mess-with-its-fundamental-structure.shtml
What shocked many folks in the tech community was just how easily the MPAA sought to dismiss some pretty massive fundamental changes to both the internet and the legal framework around the internet. However, apparently if you dare touch the "fundamental" parts of Hollywood's business, the same MPAA throws a hissy fit. The EU recently had a public consultation on a variety of copyright-related topics, some of which were more interesting than others. One of the topics was on the question of movie release windows, and whether or not they made sense any more. As we've noted there have been many, many studies that suggest that these release windows are actually a big part of the problem for Hollywood, and they're leaving a ton of money on the table by not making movies available in as many convenient ways as possible.

In fact, many of the (non-Hollywood) respondents to the consultation made this point. There's BEUC (a consumers' group) that sees (pdf) "both platform and territorial release windows as outdated." GSMA called for (pdf) support for "flexible and shorter release windows." And EuroISPA was the most stringent (pdf), pointing out that:

the current windowing system is obsolete and seriously damaging
the objective of the Digital Agenda, because it hampers the circulation of digital
works and discriminate amongst platforms, to the detriment of more innovative
technologies and business models

But you get a totally different story when you hear the MPAA's international arm, the MPA, tell its story (pdf). You see, to Hollywood, release windows are a "fundamental" part of its business model, and how dare anyone think of touching it.

The MPA
submits that the freedom to set the exact timing for the release of films in various media and
various countries is a fundamental feature of the film industry’s business model

Perhaps Hollywood is right, even if so many studies disagree. But, really, if it thinks it can just claim a certain feature is a "fundamental feature of the industry's business model," why does it then feel that there's absolutely no problem to leap into a totally different industry, and muck around with the "fundamental features" of that "industry's business model"? What an incredible sense of entitlement. The MPAA wants the law to keep its business model in place permanently... but if anyone else even dares to ask why Hollywood is trying to muck with their own business model, everyone gets attacked as being misinformed shills.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>but-the-internet?-bah...https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120228/05111217896Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:59:32 PDTUK Court Orders BT To Block Access To Usenet Site Hollywood HatesMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110728/12130215299/uk-court-orders-bt-to-block-access-to-usenet-site-hollywood-hates.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110728/12130215299/uk-court-orders-bt-to-block-access-to-usenet-site-hollywood-hates.shtmlrule on US copyright law and that merely clicking a link to open a web page can be infringement. To top it all off, the UK high court ruled that BT must block access to Usenet service provider Newzbin2. This is an incredibly questionable decision that plunges the UK into blatant government censorship. And, of course, the entertainment industry (who you would think would know better than to celebrate censorship) is thrilled beyond belief.

The ruling itself is quite troubling:

"In my judgment it follows that BT has actual knowledge of other persons using its service to infringe copyright: it knows that the users and operators of Newzbin2 infringe copyright on a large scale, and in particular infringe the copyrights of the studios in large numbers of their films and television programmes," said Justice Arnold in his ruling at the high court in London.

"[BT] knows that the users of Newzbin2 include BT subscribers, and it knows those users use its service to receive infringing copies of copyright works made available to them by Newzbin2," Arnold added.

There are many problems with this. First of all, an ISP should never be responsible for the actions of its users, and yet that's what the court is saying here. Furthermore, Usenet, which has been around for ages (and, of course, predates the web) does have non-infringing uses as well. Sure, many people do now use it to infringe, but it's pretty ridiculous to blame BT for allowing access to one service that provides access to Newzbin2, because some of its users infringe on copyrights. Furthermore, it's not even "Newzbin" that is making this content available, as the judge wrote. It's users who are making the content available.

Considering the sites that the entertainment industry has declared infringing -- including the Internet Archive, Vimeo, SoundCloud, Vibe.com and tons of blogs and forums, this is a very worrying sign indeed. Basically, if the entertainment industry is scared of your online site or service, and too clueless to figure out how to use it, you can be booted off the internet in the UK. Scary stuff.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>this won't end wellhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110728/12130215299Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:32:00 PDTMPAA Still More Focused On Those Darn 'Pirates' Rather Than Making MoneyMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110628/17471414896/mpaa-still-more-focused-those-darn-pirates-rather-than-making-money.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110628/17471414896/mpaa-still-more-focused-those-darn-pirates-rather-than-making-money.shtmlasking a court in the UK to issue an injunction forcing ISP BT to block everyone's access to Newzbin. Newzbin, of course, is a Usenet aggregator, that was found liable for infringement via its service, in large part because the site's staffers actively promoted that you could use the service to infringe. This was no surprise, as courts don't look kindly on encouraging people to infringe. What then followed was a bizarre and convoluted mess, in which Newzbin reappeared -- though it's not entirely clear how or who was behind it.

So, now, the MPA has decided that it's easier to just try to block access to it. Apparently the UK already has a "Great Firewall" type of system that requires ISPs to block access to sites deemed to be child porn sites, and the MPA says that it should be simple to start censoring "pirate" sites that it doesn't like as well. Of course, if you don't see the slippery slope there, you probably missed the story about how a list of "pirate sites" to be blocked, which was put together for ad giant GroupM with help from MPAA members Viacom and Warner Bros., included such evil sites as the Internet Archive, Vimeo and SoundCloud. How long until the MPAA asks them to be blocked from the UK as well? Of course, this is what happens when "fighting piracy," rather than "helping studios adapt and make money" is your number one priority. You end up with an entire "content protection" division with multiple vice presidents... but no "here's how we adapt and make money" division. And all those "content protection" lawyers have to have something to do, so why not press for blanket censorship? It sure beats working...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>good-luck-with-thathttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110628/17471414896Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:14:00 PDTMotion Picture Academy Threatens Costume Shop For Offering An Oscar CostumeMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100326/2246598747.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100326/2246598747.shtmlthreatening a small costume shop in New Zealand for daring to offer costumes that look like the Oscar statue. As if they don't have anything better to be focusing on? The Academy and misguided trademark lawyers will of course chime in and insist that they must do this or risk the statue becoming "generic" such that the trademark goes away, but it still seems like a bullying approach. Why not just work with the shop to offer a "licensed" version? It's not like having such costumes around the world causes any actual harm to The Oscars. In fact, it helps to promote them...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>trademark-funhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100326/2246598747Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:24:00 PSTCan A Link, By Itself, Be Copyright Infringement?Mike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090223/0214513863.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090223/0214513863.shtmlto take down 35 blogs which they say contributed to music and movie piracy. Specifically, they charge that the blogs had thousands of "infringing links." Of course, that leads to a rather obvious question: what the hell is an "infringing link"? Is it a link to infringing content? If so, then Google and pretty much any search engine is equally guilty. Simply linking to something, by itself, is not and should not be considered infringement.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>someone-please-explainhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090223/0214513863Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:21:38 PSTMPAA Cheers On Totally Useless Piracy CrackdownMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090218/0151133811.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090218/0151133811.shtmlcheering on the "success" of "Operation ZoomOut," a 10-week crackdown of movie piracy in Asia. The group talks about how various retail outlets were shut down, raids on counterfeiting shops seized a bunch of DVD-burners and counterfeit movies -- and that the overall number of counterfeit DVDs coming out of Asia declined. That's great. Except for a few small facts. You can bet that if the demand is out there, plenty of others will jump in and fill the gaps pretty damn quickly and (more importantly) none of this stopped the same movies from being available to download online.

And that, of course, is the number one problem with ridiculous and costly publicity stunts by groups like the MPA. They're useless and have no actual impact on the problem. They're trying to deal with a digital issue by using an analog solution. Once a single digital copy gets online, it really doesn't matter how many DVD-burners you seize. The movie's out there, and copies are being made at an unstoppable rate. These types of raids may make for fun headlines and gives the MPA a chance to go back to the movie studios, show them they're "doing something" and ask for more money. But it hardly does anything to deal with the new digital reality. That would require actually understanding both technology and business models -- both of which seem to be well beyond the MPA (and the MPAA's) skillset.